This matter comes to the Attorney General on appeal from the
responses of the U. S. Corrections Corporation and the Kentucky
Department of Corrections to Mr. Rasdon's April 1, 1997 open
records request to inspect a copy of the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers, Form IX, from his inmate institutional file.

After reviewing your file, I was unable to find a Form IX.
According to a letter that Michelle Nickell wrote to you on
September 18, 1996 you received a copy of a form that gives you
the same information that a Form IX contains. You received a copy
of the disposition on your charges in Indiana on January 12,
1996.

I am unable to give you a copy of something that does not
exist in your file.

In his letter of appeal, Mr. Rasdon requests this office to
compel the Department of Corrections to produce a copy of the
Form IX "even if it entails acquiring another copy from the
Clark County Indiana Prosecutor's Office located in
Jeffersonville, Indiana."

On April 6, 1997, we sent a "Notification of Receipt of
Open Records Appeal" to the Eastern Kentucky Correctional
Complex and the Department of Corrections and enclosed a copy of
Mr. Rasdon's letter of appeal. As authorized by KRS 61.880(2) and
40 KAR 1:030, Section 2, Ms. Tamela Biggs, Staff Attorney, Office
of General Counsel, Department of Corrections, provided this
office with a response to the issues raised in the letter of
appeal.

In her response, Ms. Biggs states in part:

I have reviewed Mr. Rasdon's letter of appeal and have
consulted Institutional Records staff, as well as the Central
Office Offender Records file. According to institutional staff, a
copy of the Form IX does not appear in the inmate's institutional
file. Forms I through VII are contained in his institutional
file, but Form IX is absent. I pulled the Central Office file and
located the document which Mr. Rasdon claims was executed by the
Deputy Prosecutor. (Attached as Exhibit 1) I also located an
"Agreement on Detainers" which included Forms I through
VII and an incomplete Form IX. (Attached as Exhibit 2) I have
been informed that if a Form IX is not completed, it is not
included in the institutional file. According to other attorneys
in our office, a Form IX is filled out and forwarded to the
appropriate authority for completion and signature; however, we
cannot legally force the other state to complete said Form. In
this case, Indiana chose not to execute the Form IX, but sent a
disposition of charges and the Judgment. The responses to Mr.
Rasdon's request were correct in this respect, as the institution
could not produce what it did not have.

We are asked to determine whether the responses of the
agencies were consistent with the Open Records Act. For the
reasons which follow, we conclude that they were.

This office has consistently recognized that a public agency
cannot afford a requester access to a document which does not
exist or which it does not have in its possession or custody.
93-ORD-51. In general, it is not our duty to investigate in order
to locate a document which the requesting party maintains exists,
but which the public agency states does not exist. 94-ORD-140.

In her response, Ms. Biggs stated that a copy of the requested
Form IX does not appear in Mr. Rasdon's institutional files. She
further explained normal agency procedure regarding Form IX. If
the other state fails to complete Form IX, it is not included in
an inmate's instituitonal file. In the instant case, the other
state, Indiana, chose to send a disposition of charges and the
Judgment, rather than an executed Form IX.

This office has no reason to doubt the agencies's responses
that the document requested is not in Mr. Rasdon's institutional
files. Accordingly, the responses were proper and consistent with
provisions of the Open Records Act insofar as the agency cannot
make available for inspection a document which it does not have
in its possession or custody.

The only additional duty of the public agency in such a
situation is to advise the requesting party who does or may have
the document in question, if such information is known to the
agency. KRS 61. 872(4). If Mr. Rasdon does not already have the
address of the Clark County Indiana Prosecutor's Office in
Jeffersonville, Indiana, it should be made available to him, so
that he may inquire as to whether that agency has a copy of the
document he seeks.

A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating
action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5)
and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General
should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not
be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent
proceeding.